Hi, On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:55:48AM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Thu 09 Sep 2010 01:38:36 +0200, a écrit : > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:01:12PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Wed 08 Sep 2010 01:38:25 +0200, a > > > écrit :
> > > > The information available from proc through libps OTOH can be > > > > accessed by every user. > > > > > > Which might be questionable actually. I know it's just the number > > > of ports, nothing more, but it seems odd to me to add an interface > > > just for this small part of information which you can fetch > > > yourself for your own processes. > > > > Well, there are some merits to such a like of thinking, as Shapiro > > could tell you. (OMG confinement...) > > > > However, here we are talking about a UNIX-like system, where all the > > other process information is already considered public (which is why > > proc provides such functionality in the first place) -- and to me it > > seems best to be consistent here... > > Err, unices tend to avoid exposing too much information about other > processes. Quite a few files of /proc/self are o-r on Linux for > instance. Yes, /proc contains some sensitive information. General information about resource usage etc. however is visible to anyone through ps&friends. Why would you want to treat the number of ports any different than say memory consumption, or number of threads?... -antrik-
